The whole article did loose some credibility as the writer confused many issues. For one a matte screen is not the same thing as an anti reflective glass screen. While I hope the rumors are based on some fact, it is pretty hard to tell what a new iMac might have from this article.

The same glass as the built-to-order 15 and 17 MBPs?
The old white iMac matte was LCD technology.

I for one couldn't care less about Apples peewee Bluetooth keyboard. It's practically worthless to me. It's slow to be recognized on start up, doesn't have a number pad, and only has 12 F keys. It's reminiscent (in a bad way) of the infernal hockey puck mouse for how useless it is to anybody except maybe your grand pa.

As for the matte display, it's about freakin' time. It might even make the iMac worth buying for the office. We'll see.

All this mumbo jumbo about how the public demanded glossy couldn't be more ridiculous. The fact is that Apple before had a terrible environmental rating with the plasticy LCD screens and changing to degradable/recyclable glass raised the rating.
The Al Gore effect.

If Apple makes an iMac like that, I'll go with that. I was considering having such glass custom cut for an iMac.

I thought the coating would be applied after the glass was cut. I have seen the equipment that was used to coat optics. It vaporized a chemical compound with heat which then adhered to the lens, however, this process was extremely expensive. I'm not sure how the anti-glare coating would be applied to such a large area such as a computer screen.

Really? We have a couple of iMacs at the office, an older aluminum 24" and a brand new 21.5", and I've never heard the slightest noise from either of them.

I can corroborate this, my aluminum iMac is a couple years old, and very silent. OTOH, I also have a white iMac G5 20'', and I remember it was really silent when new, but it's somewhat noisy now (not as noisy as a PC with a cheap fan, but anyway far more noisy than when it was new). I cleaned it, and I reinstalled Tiger, and I recovered the speed it had when new, and also the noise was reduced, but still noticeable... the G5 iMac fan doesn't age well.

Suffered terribly? As opposed to burning out someone's retina if a simple lightbulb was reflected in a glossy?
Who uses an iMac in direct sunlight?

I cannot wait for this if it is true. I will pounce. Thank you Tim Cook.

I bought a matte 20'' G5 iMac back when Tiger was released, and I still use it at home. In my office I've an aluminum iMac, and my G5 matte screen at home is more comfortable to use than the aluminum one at the office, because I'm always moving the aluminum iMac, or closing windows, in order to avoid glare, while at home I never have glare with the G5

It's probably going to be a type of antireflection coating, as used on camera lenses. Usually this is vapor-deposited varieties of MgFl or something similar. It's a well known technology and used in any modern optics (e.g. Multicoating). It's relatively cheap in the big picture, all things considered. This sort of thing is long overdue.

I wouldn't downplay tactile feedback that much. It's a big one imo. That's not to say apple may not be able to innovate something where you don't even need to touch something, but my fingers need some sort of response to wail on a keyboard. It helps guide my fingers as I type. I know I'm not the only one out there that feels the same way. Which is why these keyboards still exist.

With that being said, I'm very curious of this .2mm feedback. That couldn't be "just enough" feedback to improve typing speeds.

0.2mm/0.008" seems far too short... but what if there was another reason for it?

We know that Apple cares about the keyboard. We know that Apple understands that a quality keyboard needs to feel right to the user. We also know there is no reason to reduce the travel or usefulness in a desktop system due to weight or space. But what if they will be using this new keyboard design to first introduce haptic feedback? This seems the perfect place to start it before you can finally get it power efficient enough to include behind a touchscreen device.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

The two terms have unfortunately been conflated. There are anti-glare processes that apply very thin layers of material to reduce the reflectivity of a surface without adding any texture. Just take a look at a camera lens, most of them have an anti reflective surface but are not matte textured. You should be able to tell at least by the fact that the reflections aren't the same color as the incident light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69

It will be interesting to see what Apple delivers. Many of these technologies require some sort of vacuum coating process. Thus they are expensive, especially for large panel sizes.

The problem I see already in this thread is that people are immediately thinking matte which may be way off base. Matte has always been a terrible solution to the problem at hand, even if some have convinced themselves that they gotta have it.

I hope it's off base. I don't think the world needs more matte screens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone

I thought the coating would be applied after the glass was cut. I have seen the equipment that was used to coat optics. It vaporized a chemical compound with heat which then adhered to the lens, however, this process was extremely expensive. I'm not sure how the anti-glare coating would be applied to such a large area such as a computer screen.

It may not be the exact same process, or exact same materials, but the effects were similar. All the 21" CRTs I had used, and several smaller ones had that kind of a coating. Heck, my 50" plasma TV screen has such a coating.

I bought a matte 20'' G5 iMac back when Tiger was released, and I still use it at home. In my office I've an aluminum iMac, and my G5 matte screen at home is more comfortable to use than the aluminum one at the office, because I'm always moving the aluminum iMac, or closing windows, in order to avoid glare, while at home I never have glare with the G5

I am still using my matte 20" Intel Core Duo iMac.
Thank god we use matte Compaq screens at the office.

I'd love to see Apple use SSD drives similar to what the Macbook Air uses that are user replaceable, upgradeable like the RAM cards. External thunderbolt drives when serious capacity is needed. That will really thin out the iMac and get the heat signature down a bit.

As long as they continue to use glass for display, I'm a happy camper. I've been using my late 2009 iMac happily and with no issues with the glossy display.

I remember when the first chiclet keyboards came out and everyone really put them down as not having the travel distance of a "real" IBM PC keyboard that had about half the travel distance of a Selectric typewriter.

There was a time in the pre-power PC days when you could get a int that would give you the sound of a manual typewriter, complete with the bell and ziiiing when you hit "return."

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

0.2mm/0.008" seems far too short... but what if there was another reason for [reduced travel distance]?

Health reasons. It lowers carpal tunnel injury by causing less tendon movement and also reduces the impact force of the finger tip on the keycap and thus the resulting shock that travels up the finger bones to the wrist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecs

I can corroborate this, my aluminum iMac is a couple years old, and very silent. OTOH, I also have a white iMac G5 20'', and I remember it was really silent when new, but it's somewhat noisy now (not as noisy as a PC with a cheap fan, but anyway far more noisy than when it was new). I cleaned it, and I reinstalled Tiger, and I recovered the speed it had when new, and also the noise was reduced, but still noticeable... the G5 iMac fan doesn't age well.

Not to disagree, but that G5 has aged very well. It's at least 150 years old in tech-years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zunx

It would be great if the new keyboard allowed to power-on the Mac, As previously possible with ADB and former USB Apple keyboards; see for instance, the i-Cue dongle also for that:
<< snip>>
Yet, it does not work with current Macs. Such booting from the keyboard is extremely useful when the Mac is below or away from the table or desktop surface.
If USB does not allow it, maybe Thunderbolt could make the dream true!

The Macs sleep with very little power use. Just wake it with the wireless mouse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone

I thought the coating would be applied after the glass was cut. I have seen the equipment that was used to coat optics. It vaporized a chemical compound with heat which then adhered to the lens, however, this process was extremely expensive. I'm not sure how the anti-glare coating would be applied to such a large area such as a computer screen.

Fluoride gas?

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge

That it is a division of Foxconn just adds to the feeling that it is trumped up info to raise the stock value of Foxconn. After all they just took a PR hit with the whole labor thing. Claiming they are about to embark on something awesome and new would carry the implication that Apple has no long term concerns about the partnership etc.

It may not be the exact same process, or exact same materials, but the effects were similar. All the 21" CRTs I had used, and several smaller ones had that kind of a coating. Heck, my 50" plasma TV screen has such a coating.

One interesting side benefit of a matte screen was that it blurred the screen ever-so-slightly making the pixels less obvious. If Apple is planning on converting the MBPs to Retina displays then most anti-glare solutions would be counter to better resolution,

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge

One interesting side benefit of a matte screen was that it blurred the screen ever-so-slightly making the pixels less obvious. If Apple is planning on converting the MBPs to Retina displays then most anti-glare solutions would be counter to better resolution,

No, it's the matte treatments that would be counter to better resolution. Non-matte treatments would work fine.

Thumbs up to anti-glare glass. The technology has been available for years, but Apple stubbornly stuck with ordinary glass or traditional fuzzy matte.

The "properly lit room" crowd clearly don't understand that many people have little or no control over their environment. I work in an office tower. My desk is cube-like, it's attached to 5 others and cannot be moved, rotated, etc. The entire wall behind me is glass. If I climb on my desk to disable the fluorescent light above my head the building maintenance people will "fix" it.

Thumbs down to thinner because it forces Apple to use lower power components. Not that I want an iMac I can heat my house with in winter, but a desktop computer should be able to use the most powerful components on the market. We're already stuck with mobile graphics, will the next generation be limited to mobile CPUs too?

The two terms have unfortunately been conflated. There are anti-glare processes that apply very thin layers of material to reduce the reflectivity of a surface without adding any texture. Just take a look at a camera lens, most of them have an anti reflective surface but are not matte textured. You should be able to tell at least by the fact that the reflections aren't the same color as the incident light.

If people remember those coatings used to be rather delicate. Today there are very durable solutions. As to the use of these coatings on Apples LCD screens I think it is matter of being able to coat large panels economically and with good quality. Apple might see the cost of the glass double but I'm not sure that is a big issue.

Quote:

I hope it's off base. I don't think the world needs more matte screens.

Yeah especially if HiDPI screens come. Such screens would be useless with a matte material over them.

Quote:

It may not be the exact same process, or exact same materials, but the effects were similar. All the 21" CRTs I had used, and several smaller ones had that kind of a coating. Heck, my 50" plasma TV screen has such a coating.

Well like I said it will be interesting to see what if anything Apple implements here. They actually have many options.

Depends, when was this? I didn't have any problems with these coatings, I've been using displays coating as far back as maybe 12 years ago. I do use washing solutions designed for anti reflective coatings though, and I make it a habit to not touch the screens.

That it is a division of Foxconn just adds to the feeling that it is trumped up info to raise the stock value of Foxconn. After all they just took a PR hit with the whole labor thing. Claiming they are about to embark on something awesome and new would carry the implication that Apple has no long term concerns about the partnership etc.

One interesting side benefit of a matte screen was that it blurred the screen ever-so-slightly making the pixels less obvious. If Apple is planning on converting the MBPs to Retina displays then most anti-glare solutions would be counter to better resolution,

Probably the biggest mistake I've ever made, computer hardware wise, was buying my 2008 MBP with a matte screen. The screens just make viewing fine detail very tedious and eventually it leads to eye strain.

I was wondering if that would have an effect on pixels about 1/4 the current size.

I'm constantly frustrated by the matte screen on my MBP. I very much prefer my iPads to that screen, even with my older eyes the screens are much crisper and detail is easier to decern. Matte screens really mean muddy screens and further they really don't help much with reflections.

In any event this could very well be a very positive development if true. It could mean that every customer would be happy. Sharp screens with low reflections.

One interesting side benefit of a matte screen was that it blurred the screen ever-so-slightly making the pixels less obvious. If Apple is planning on converting the MBPs to Retina displays then most anti-glare solutions would be counter to better resolution,

That's not so much of a benefit to matte. Typically better delineation or smaller pixels will make viewing easier. If the contrast is too high or the brightness is glaring, that will fatigue your eyes.

Depends, when was this? I didn't have any problems with these coatings.

There are multiple approaches here and frankly some systems lead to layers of coatings. Most of the recent offerings though are not a problem. What I was referring to is coatings available verily early in the development of these systems. Some where very delicate. If you ever go into a used camera store you will see many Very old uncoated lenses In good shape, often the older coated lenses are well showing their age.

The problem here is that many companies have developed different processes over the years to surface treat optics, some more durable than others. Some suitable for different wavelengths than others. By enlarge though modern coatings are far more durable than the old stuff.

A vacuum coating operation was once in the same building as the one I worked in. It is a very interesting processes, huge machines are used to coat very small lenses. While I never worked there I did get a few glimpses of the coating chambers and a little insight into the business. It is very much a science as interesting as semiconductor making. A science it is, as sometimes these layers are only atoms thick on the glass.

Oh, you mean it won't be glossy? All those matte people will be so conflicted now ... Is anti glare to be considered matte ... I doubt it!

It's not merely an issue between glossy and matte, there are trade offs between both (sharpness vs. reflectivity). Apple could have opted for a semi gloss screen (i.e. dropping the glass) as in the air which would have been just fine for most people, but instead they opted for the worst option of an untreated glass on top of the display (and not fused to the screen as in the iphone) creating a second refraction surface and tons of mirror like glare.

Educate yourself about screen coating tech before spewing uninformed sarcasm about a vast number of people who have real usability problems with the glare on the imac and they are not out to get neither apple nor you, but have instead been asking for a feature that will enable them to work without prematurely having to wear prescription glasses from their eyes having to constantly readjust against the glare:

The two terms have unfortunately been conflated. There are anti-glare processes that apply very thin layers of material to reduce the reflectivity of a surface without adding any texture. Just take a look at a camera lens, most of them have an anti reflective surface but are not matte textured. You should be able to tell at least by the fact that the reflections aren't the same color as the incident light.

I hope it's off base. I don't think the world needs more matte screens.

That's an informed opinion. The world doesn't need any more matte screens (despite my sig which has run its course) because apparently the technology now exists to the point of being mass produced where the trade offs between glossy or matte won't be something we will have to suffer through. For me the best type of coating at the moment is semi gloss, like a (good quality one) from the airs, or some recent coatings from samsung, and in pva monitor panels, but none of them are there yet. Having said all that apple's choice of sticking an untreated layer of glass on top of semi gloss screens as in the imacs and macbooks has very rightly been heavily critised as a purely aesthetic choice creating serious usability problems what with the added glare from the glass. There was never a usability benefit from the extra glass (semi gloss would have had less glare) and there was always a very serious reflection problem created because of it. How apple managed to spin that the extra glass was indeed offering something in terms of screen quality is beyond me and is in the realm of the reality distortion filed; untreated reflective mirror like glass never offered anything really and it detracted so much in terms of glare from using the macs.

Oh, you mean it won't be glossy? All those matte people will be so conflicted now ... Is anti glare to be considered matte ... I doubt it!

On the keyboard ... I wonder if we will one day have virtual key boards from Apple, as in the keyboard will just be a screen like an elongated iPad. It would have the huge advantage of running any language and be context aware for apps with the ability to control this when running. It seems like the logical evolution to me. Why make mechanical keyboards in this day and age?

Almost no one is that nitpicky. I keep my work area like a cave, and even then the current glossy displays would reflect from their own light alone. A non-textured anti reflective screen treatment would be great. The one I'm looking at right now is an old NEC 2190. The coating isn't highly reflective, but you do see some diffused reflections if light hits it. It's not really an issue though. On the imac under typical office lighting, the reflections are strong enough to obscure finer details.

Overall screen treatments are an area that could use some improvement.

We're spoiled at this point no doubt, but if its not also retina-ish I would be let down. But it might be another year at least before such panels in this size are feasible for mass production, its like CPUs, its easier to get working models which are smaller, hence starting with the iPhone then iPad, then presumably MBA.

Almost no one is that nitpicky. I keep my work area like a cave, and even then the current glossy displays would reflect from their own light alone. A non-textured anti reflective screen treatment would be great. The one I'm looking at right now is an old NEC 2190. The coating isn't highly reflective, but you do see some diffused reflections if light hits it. It's not really an issue though.

It's a typically light pva/mva coating, the best so far compromise in terms of graininess and reflections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60

Doesn't matte/anti glare affect sharp, accurate colour reproduction?

Which is why it isn't used on current Macs.

It's a trade off.

Well apple could have just used a semi gloss screen, as is indeed the imac's screen under the glass, since extra glass doesn't ADD anything in terms of colour reproduction, and many colour/photography professionals claim it detracts due to the glare it creates. In apple's case the glass is there solely because glass and aluminum look expensive and vintage, not because glass offers any advantage in terms of colour reproduction or sharpness over a light semi gloss coating.

Since they are sticking to glass the best option to me would be very low reflectivity glass fused to the screen underneath as with the current iphone.

I also wish at some point they rethought the imacs ergonomics, g3 was so advanced in terms of these, and from g4 onwards, as striking as the imac looked as an all in one with the computer internals behind the screen, ergonomics have suffered. Surely Ive and his team can come up with a design that's both elegant and allows for optimal ergonomic use (if they can't, who cans?). Computer displays are supposed to be height adjustable so people don't strain and fatigue their eyes and necks. Unfortunately I don't think we 'll be seeing an imac with g3 ergonomics any time soon...unless apple surprise us. What a welcome surprise that would be.

Because you can't touch type on a touch screen keyboard. I type ninety words per minute, and most professionals who use a keyboard for a significant amount of typing have similar requirements. While Apple might make a touch screen keyboard, I don't see this ever...EVER...being the de facto keyboard standard for productivity. To touch type (type without looking), one must rest his fingers on the keyboard and be able to feel the keys...just like a pianist. If you you replaced a piano with a touchscreen, a pianist would be unable to play because he would lose his place. Nor can your eyes move from key to key as fast as you can type. As nice as touchscreens are, there are some solutions that are, simply, better. I think any typist and pianist would agree...a mechanical keyboard is technologically more advanced, in terms of function and utility, than a touchscreen. Occasionally I hear someone brag about how fast he can type on a touchscreen...and then I watch him and laugh. It simply isn't comparable.

I remember the Blackberry v iPhone discussion regarding real keyboards ... Don't you? Add tactile feedback and ten years from now want to bet on the likelihood of a virtual keyboard as the standard from Apple?

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"